Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Sean Saxby, the applicant. Mr Saxby expressed the view that the proposed dog park aligns with community needs and meets multiple planning policy objectives, with the demand for dog parks in this region being substantial given the fact that 33% of households own dogs. He added that existing parks are frequently oversubscribed reflecting a clear need for additional well managed facilities and the proposal aims to provide a safe, clean and professionally operated space for pet owners and will offer a safe environment for dogs and people who like to enjoy the outdoors, with this proposal meeting a crucial need especially given the 22% increase in dog related incidents this year highlighting the need for controlled spaces and socialisation.

Mr Saxby stated that the site is accessible and can be reached by footpath for those residents living in both March and Wimblington who wish to walk to the park and there is a bus stop adjacent to the site providing easy access for those wishing to use public transport if they do not have access to a private car. He made the point that this also supports sustainability goals by reducing reliance on car travel and promoting more healthier active lifestyles for residents who walk or take the bus to the facility.

Mr Saxby referred to biodiversity and enhancement and explained that whilst the current site is just an agricultural field, the proposed dog park incorporates extensive hedging and landscaping which will significantly enhance the biodiversity and create a thriving habitat for wildlife, which aligns with Policy LP16e as it directly supports and enriches the biodiversity. He added that the landscaping will also create natural buffers to include screening, fencing and other park features to maintain the rural character of the area, with the visual impact on the park being minimal and thoughtfully mitigated.

Mr Saxby explained that the design features, fencing and structures will be effectively screened by newly planted hedgerows which will mirror traditional field boundaries common throughout the Fenland countryside, with there being natural topography along with existing mature trees on the southern boundary which limit the visibility from public viewpoints particularly from the south and west. He explained that as a result this will ensure that the project aligns with Policy LP16(c) and (d) which will preserve the character of the landscape and avoiding any adverse impact on the rural scene.

Mr Saxby explained that with regards to the precedence of existing development there are several other leisure and commercial developments nearby including the driving range and golf course which is opposite the proposed site and a petrol station to the west and the facilities already include built features and flood lighting into the area which are visually more prominent than the dog parks proposed facilities. He stated that recent permission for an office building to the north of the road has set a precedent for further development in the area which demonstrates that controlled non residential use is compatible with the local setting.

Mr Saxby expressed the view that future demands and the anticipated southeast March development means that there will be an increase in the local population including houses with dogs which are essential to proactively address the recreational needs of the residents including dedicated spaces for pet exercise and socialisation and should even a third of these new households have a dog then the demand for secure accessible outdoor space will only increase which highlights the need for the dog park in particular. He expressed the opinion that although LP16 primarily addresses residential and commercial development, the dog park aligns well with the policy’s broader objectives and will align with protecting and enhancing the biodiversity on the site with significant landscaping and hedging and will incorporate and respect natural features and will create a landscape in harmony with traditional countryside patterns.

Mr Saxby expressed the opinion that it will enhance the local character, provide additional leisure opportunity, will be in keeping with nearby amenities, will not disrupt the existing landscape and will incorporate facilities for waste collection and disposal ensuring that a well maintained and user-friendly environment. He explained that it will be a safe environment by using secure fencing and be of a design to provide a controlled space that deters crime and promotes community safety.

Mr Saxby stated that there has been significant community support for the project and minimal objection emphasising community endorsement of the facility encouraging exercise and social interaction including mental wellbeing for pet owners and their dogs. He added that this aligns with Fenland’s Local Plan and broader goal for community orientated development.

Members asked Mr Saxby the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French asked whether he has any concerns over the loss of prime farmland and could he have not found another location which was not as prominent as the A141? She also asked him to confirm whether he is proposing to include toilet facilities on the site? Mr Saxby stated that at the current time there are no plans to include toilet facilities and he added that he is aware that other dog parks in the area do not have toilet facilities. He added that with regard to the loss of farmland, in his opinion, there is still plenty of farmland that Fenland has to offer and the proposal is in alignment with existing development including that of the March South East development for 2000 homes which is going on land which is currently farmland.

·         Councillor Mrs French made the point that she finds it disappointing that Highways have not objected to the proposal as it is a 60mph stretch of road. She added that the proposal includes a no right-hand turn, however, in her view, she cannot see how that will work and she does have concerns regarding this.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that Mr Saxby mentioned about people visiting the site by taking their dog on a bus and she questioned whether people take dogs on buses. Mr Saxby stated that many of the dog parks which are operating already are over subscribed and, therefore, if you need to take your dog out to a dog park and you do not drive then there is the option of getting a bus with a bus stop being located outside the site.

·         Councillor Marks stated that there appears to be 28 parking spaces at the site, with the rent of the dog field being by the hour, which appears to be 168 vehicle movements in a day which, in his opinion, concerns him over the access point due to the close proximity of the roundabout to the site. He asked Mr Saxby what his view is and does he not think that is too many movements? Mr Saxby stated that the way that the facility has been designed and detailed in the design access statement is that there will be hourly blocks but broken down into half hourly sections so that the demand on the half hour point is less than if it was just on the hour. Councillor Marks stated that may be the case but there is still the same volume of cars which is 168 vehicle movements off the road per day and the garage across the road also needs to be taken into consideration. He added that he has concerns that the traffic is going to back up to the roundabout very quickly and will cause a bottleneck with the number of vehicles being proposed. Mr Saxby explained that many of the parking spaces on the site are additional waiting spaces and are not for use throughout the whole hour. He explained that when somebody arrives at the site, they will be held in a waiting space and not on the road. Councillor Marks stated that fact is irrelevant as they will still be turning into and leaving the field in one way or another and it is still going to be the same amount of vehicle movements. Mr Saxby stated that he agrees with the fact that cars are going to have to come in and out and from a highways perspective he has spoken to them and has had transport studies measuring the speed of vehicles along the road. He added that if a vehicle is approaching a roundabout then it should not be doing 60mph and he explained that he has gone through all the necessary hurdles with the Highways Authority that were necessary to alleviate concerns.

·         Councillor Marks asked that if the dog park idea does not work going forwards, would the land be returned to farmland or used for something else especially if the application is approved and would have an access point? Mr Saxby stated that nothing further has been considered as there is a great demand for a dog park and it is something that he feels that the community needs.

·         Councillor Connor stated that there are 550 homes in the pipeline which includes the 400 dwellings which were passed a couple of months ago and 130 which were approved very recently. He added that a number of those dwellings will access from Lambs Hill Drove.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked whether there is any comparative data on the number of vehicles for the other dog parks in Thorney and Wisbech so that members can have a proper idea of the numbers of people coming in and out. Mr Saxby responded that their modelling of how booked these facilities are in advance is typically around 30-40% on the available hours. Councillor Sennitt Clough asked 30-40% of what number? Mr Saxby responded that some have different booking hours but they are typically from 8am until 6pm or longer. Councillor Sennitt Clough questioned 30-40% of what overall percentage as she is sure that he has comparative data to share based on other business models around the area of dog parks and how many visitors per day those other places achieving. Mr Saxby responded that weekends are fully booked so there will be 10-11 trips or visits, with there being four fields here but he does not expect them to be at 100% even at the weekend, during the week numbers are much less typically there are around 6 hours or trips. Councillor Sennitt Clough sought clarification that at the weekends there are 11 trips per day and 6 during the week? Mr Saxby confirmed this was correct on average.

·         Councillor Marks referred to 28 car parking spaces being provided for 11 cars per day on a weekend and asked if this was correct? Mr Saxby responded that most dog parks are for one field and they have the area on this proposal spilt into four as they feel the demand is there for four so there would be four times the amount of cars, 44 on a day. He added that they have additional car parking spaces in case people bring two cars, there are going to be more cars than at a single dog park with 11 cars per day. Councillor Marks questioned that working on 8 hours a day and the field is let by the hour. Mr Saxby stated that it was let by the hour but two fields would be let on the hour and the other two on the half hour to reduce the peak of traffic.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked is it being said that each field is going to have one dog on it at one time? Mr Saxby responded that no, most of the time that is the case but there may be one person booking it who have two or more dogs.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked if there are plans on how the dog fouling is being disposed of? Mr Saxby responded that there will be lots of dog bins on the site and they will have a contractor come in to empty them at a frequency rate still to be decided.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Marks stated that he believes the application that committee approved for 400 homes that there was a change to this roundabout for an extra lane to come off turning left towards Chatteris and asked if this was the case? Gavin Taylor responded that this is not the case, he has looked at the plans for the Mill Hill Roundabout improvements and the improvement works incorporate a widening of the approach arm heading from Chatteris to Mill Hill Roundabout to give that capacity so there is not lane starvation and people queuing as they approach March. He added that the northern side of the A141 Mill Hill Roundabout the improvement works did not include any widening or adjustments notwithstanding that the application site sits outside any highway land so should there be a future need to widen any of the carriageways that members may be concerned about there appears to be highway land to accommodate that at this time, without prejudice to any final assessment of highways but this scheme does not appear to encroach onto highway land.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has a MATS meeting next week and will be asking questions but this does concern her as at the planning application a few weeks ago for Lambs Hill Drove the applicant was requested money for MATS for the improvements at Mill Hill so she feels the information might not have been fed back and she is concerned about Mill Hill as the traffic is horrendous, with the access to this proposal being so close to the roundabout. Gavin Taylor responded that the MATS scheme is for upgrade improvements at Peas Hill Roundabout, Hostmoor and St Peters Road, with the Mill Hill Roundabout mitigation being a direct delivery by the developer as there is not actually a project on hand with the Local Highway Authority to deliver it. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is not convinced, she has been working on MATS since 2017 and it was never expected the amount of homes being proposed, with the traffic in March being chaotic and she will find out at the MATS meeting next week what work is being undertaken but it is her understanding that Mill Hill will be looked at.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follow:

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that there is a need for a dog park as there are hundreds of dogs, and she understands that there is already one in March if it still operating and one in Manea but this one is premature.

·         Councillor Marks agreed with Councillor Mrs French, he is concerned about the highway as whilst the Highway Authority say one thing using a desktop survey members live in the area, use these roads and roundabouts and he feels the access is too close to the roundabout and he can see another bottleneck happening. He expressed the opinion that there is a need, the one in Manea does very well, but he thinks this is in the wrong place.

·         Councillor Benney stated he does not disagree that an area is needed to walk dogs but this area in the emerging Local Plan is for industrial use and looking at the flood maps the part by the road is in Flood Zone 1 and that could be used for car showrooms, McDonalds and to turn this into a dog walking area is the waste of a prime site that could be so much better used. He expressed the view there are plenty of other places that a dog walking site could be located on land that has less potential.

·         Councillor Connor agreed that it is needed but this is the wrong place so close to the Mill Hill Roundabout.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that her reservations are based purely on the fact that she did not get the clarity that she wanted on the numbers coming in and out.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the update from Environmental Health who recommend refusal and she feels they should be listened to.

·         Councillor Imafidon stated that he knows Highways did not object but his concern is about the impact it would have where the access is located as he feels it could create a bottleneck at the roundabout and it is in an open area where something more productive can be undertaken with that land.

Proposed by Councillor Marks, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council, but takes no part in planning. She further declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she had been lobbied on this application)